1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No.1862 of 2013

---------

Jharkhand State Housing Board, a Body Corporate created by

Jharkhand State Housing Board Act, 2000 through its Manager (Estate)

namely Shri Manohar Marandi S/o. Late Manik Marandi, having its

Office at: Jharkhand State Housing Board, Harmu Housing Colony,

P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, Town & District: Ranchi State: Jharkhand.

……… Petitioner

Versus

Sri Jagdish Prasad Singh, Son of Late Chitto Singh, resident of Village

Bhojpur, P.O. Bishunpur, P.S. Wazirganj, District Gaya (Bihar).

………. Respondent

---------

CORAM

: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

---------

For the Petitioners

: Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent

: Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate

: Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate

---

8/27.11.2021

The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.

2.

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India for quashing of the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in

Revision Petition No.446 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the order

passed by the said Commission has been set aside by restoring the

order passed by the District Consumer Forum.

3.

Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned cousnel appearing for the sole

respondent-complainant

has

raised

the

objection

regarding

maintainability of the writ petition by taking aid of the provision of

Section 27-A(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

4.

This Court, instead of entering into the merit of the case, deems

it fit and proper first to deal with the issue of maintainability of the

writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, so as to

consider, as to whether on the facts of the given case, this writ petition

is maintainable or not, if it is not maintainable, there is no question of

entering into the issue on merit certainly if this Court will found that

2

the writ petition is maintainable then the question of going into the

merit of the issue will arise.

5.

This Court, in order to appreciate the issue of maintainability

has considered the provision of Section 27-A(1) of the Consumer

Protection Act, 1986 which reads hereunder as:-

“27-A. Appeal against order passed under Section 27.-(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal under

section 27, both on facts and on law, shall lie from-

(a) the order made by the District Forum to the State

Commission;

(b) the order made by the State Commission to the National

Commission; and

(c) the order made by the National Commission to the

Supreme Court.”

6.

The issue of maintainability of the writ petition against the

order pased by the National Commission is the subject matter of

consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Cicily Kallarackal vs.

Vehicle Factory, (2012) 8 SCC 524, wherein, at paragraph nos.3, 4 and

9, it has been laid down that the order passed by the National

Commission is not amenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, the passage of the aforesaid paragraphs reads hereunder as:-

“3. So far as the issue of jurisdiction is concerned, the

learned counsel for the petitioner is right that the High

Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter against

the order of the Commission. However, while dealing with

a similar issue this Court in Mohd. Swalleh v. Addl.

District Judge, Meerut [(1988) 1 SCC 40 : AIR 1988 SC

94] observed: (SCC p. 46, para 7)

“7. It was contended before the High Court

that no appeal lay from the decision of the

prescribed authority to the District Judge. The

High Court accepted this contention. … (sic no

appeal lay) … On that ground the High Court

declined to interfere with the order of t